Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics the reason FFP Sucks for hunting scopes

marketing tends to encourage more complex or irrational products and the price points rises concurrently--probably a coincidence

for hunting, the genius of a 12oz scope with a readily visible crosshair reticle just isn't an industry profit center...

I don't think the Artemis 2100 was a marketing scope. It was built to be a tough SOB, do anything, low light uberwackenhuntinsight. The steel tube is for when chit really hits the fan, you can convert to pipebomb, billy club, jack handle, cheater-bar; really just about anything tubular!

And there it is.

I know that SFP works fine for what I do, but also that there are individuals with more and/or different experience who swear by FFP.

That's The tendency of CC that demonstrates he is FOS; he can't make that distinction and therefore speaks as universal what is particular to him and his (VERY) limited experience.

Not to mention he doesn't know the difference between your & you're or board & bored but that's for another discussion...

Hey, if you want to sale your SFP scope, have at it.

John, Swaro made a good duplex for their PH series that was nice and very useable in a FFP....but of course they don't make the scope anymore either.

The fact that you don't post about your hunts leads folks, definitely me, to question your field time with something. Bragging or not, I (we) don't know you and only know what you post. Maybe answer the questions asked and folks will quit busting your balls. Until then your opinion will be treated as talking out your ass from lack of experience. Notice how much less grief that folks whom post about their shooting/hunting get for similar comments as you made.

Yep, I live in state where centerfire rifle use is very restricted. But, I got a tip for you, I don't hunt just in my resident state. I've killed big game in 3 states that border UT this year. I do admit that compared to many this is a paltry amount of experience.

Then you have the guy that was driving force behind the design of the scope and reticle you have such a problem with. His bona fides are quite well respected in regards to both hunting and shooting long range. I'd hazard a guess that he has more and a wider breadth of experience than you... Yet, you think you can unequivocally claim FFP to be less effective for hunting than SFP. Heck, one of the scopes in the OP on one rifle has accounted for 16 big game animals in 2 years. Have you killed 1/4 of that amount of big game in the past two years with your scope of choice? That is why I can't agree completely with your version of a "dose of reality".

Can't a guy get a brake? It's two ruff aound hear sometimes.

Jordan's photo shows those who are objective the crosshair in fact does get larger as power is increased. Otherwise we could see the small hash marks on low setting.

Right, but RD is correct. The entire image, including the reticle, gets larger with magnification. The subtension, or the amount of the image that the reticle covers, remains constant at all magnifications.

pointer yes you are one of the usual suspects. why is this about me and what I do and don't know RATHER THAN THE MERITS OF WHAT I SAYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! good lord dude. now its about me knowing nothing because I don't post pictures bragging about how great I am. I don't need accolades from people around here. I don't need acceptance. so no I am not posting any pictures thats personal to me and my friends. frankly one could kill 16 big game animals with open sites. people want to respond to this without even actually reading what I have said about FFP or not.

for the last freaking time FFP has a place in the optics world, YES is does. but the problem is the video I showed and even more pictures that jordan from alberta posted albeit unwittingly further illustrate my point. (btw jordan from alberta, take me coyote hunting up there calling canada is a dream of mine) If jordan takes that pic with the trees instead of the sky in the background you can't even see the reticle at all!

Look no doubt occasionally I like to kick the ant pile around here. yeah I like some drama, but as part of that I am kinda also looking to be proven wrong if it can be done. my views are subject to change based on reason, experience, and logic. but thats not what I see from those advocating FFP on HUNTING scopes. If we all met even ole formido we would probably shake hands and laugh, its all good. happy holidays

On a site like this there are a lot of people who talk out their ass. The only way for a person to pull the nuggets from the chaff is to be able to read sign.

So like it or not, it is about you, or rather your credibility as evidenced by what you post here. Some have lots of credibility by virtue of what they post, others not so much.

That's pretty much how it works.

That scope is not meant to be a 100% dedicated short-to-medium range, twilight, bush scope. The reticle was not designed with that solely in mind. It was designed to do LR very well, and short-range, twilight shooting good enough. Which it does. Those pics were taken at twilight, and you can still see the reticle against the trees plenty good enough to decisively arrange POI.

I think the saying goes- "always consider the source"

40 meter shot made with said scope set at 3X.....how did I ever pull that off? Maybe I just aimed down the barrel...

so what about FFP with illumination? how does that suck as a hunting scope

I thought only Schidt and Bendover scopes were worth owning?

Jesus dude - pick a handle and stick with it.

I thought only Take a knee said stupid schit like that.

Impossible, Rick killed him.

"Should have"